SECTION XIII. Whether Jesus visited Nazareth or Capernaum first.* As a proof that our Lord visited Nazareth before his arrival at Capernaum, your Lordship urges several circumstances mentioned by Luke, that are not noticed by the other evangelists, as his reading in the prophet Isaiah, &c.; but these are only additional articles, and not such variations as prove the visits to have been different; and I own that Luke's account of the transaction is by much the most circumstantial. The argument on which your Lordship now lays the chief stress, is, that the visit to Nazareth, related by Luke, is followed by the same circumstances with respect to his arrival at Capernaum, with those related by Matthew and Mark, as his calling of Peter, &c.† I answer, that Matthew gives no account of any rejection of our Lord at Nazareth, at the time that he is said to have left Nazareth to go to Capernaum; and as he certainly preached at the time of his rejection there, and even publicly in the synagogue, and with such very remarkable consequences, he would hardly have said, in his account of his arrival at Capernaum, only four verses afterwards, "From that time Jesus began to preach." And Mark makes no mention at all of any arrival at Nazareth before he came to Capernaum. Besides, had our Lord been rejected twice at the same place, the thing was so very extraordinary, that it would hardly have passed unnoticed by the evangelists. We might, at least, expect some allusion to the first rejection, in their account of the second. Such conduct of our Lord would also seem to have been contrary to the instructions he gave to his apostles on their mission, (Matt. x. 14,) "Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet;" which seems to imply, that they were not to preach to them any more. What you call "our Lord's second visit to Nazareth," mentioned by "Matthew and Mark," is certainly related in a more advanced period of our Lord's ministry; but it Reply, pp. 119–133. † Ibid. pp. 124—127. ↑ Ibid. p. 128. does not therefore follow that there had been any preceding visit, and, therefore, that there were "two visits to Nazareth, and two rejections there ;"* but only that Luke places the same rejection in one part of the history, and Matthew and Mark in another; and to the testimony of these two, I cannot help giving a decided preference. Besides, that this visit was, in fact, in a more advanced period of our Lord's ministry than where Luke places it, I think his own account affords a sufficient intimation, when he represents the Jews as saying (iv. 23) to him at that time, "Whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country." That all this should refer to a single miracle, wrought at Capernaum, before our Lord himself had been there, I still think very improbable. SECTION XIV. Of the Harmony of the Gospels according to the ON this I think it unnecessary to trouble our readers with any particular remarks; only wishing, as well as your Lordship, that our readers would apply your quotation from Lardner to my own attempt, as well as to your Lordship's. "I desire that the reader will particularly apply it to my own attempt, lest, in any place, I should have lessened the propriety or beauty of our Lord's actions or discourses by a wrong arrangement, or should have led the theological student to a misconception of the length or progress of our Lord's ministry. Speaking of Tatian's mistakes, he, Dr. Lardner, says, there is a respect due to the first attempts in any part of knowledge. Nor are modern harmonists free from prejudged opinions; and I am apprehensive that most of their harmonies likewise have need to be read with indulgence and caution, as well as those of the ancients."§ I would observe, however, that, in speaking of Epipha Reply, p. 129. (P.) +"Especially Eusebius and Epiphanius, and some of the moderns who have most nearly followed them." Ibid. pp. 134-140. The Bishop says, " Augus. tin's four books on the Consent of the Gospels should be added to the ancient writers mentioned by you; and in the Prefaces to Chemnitius's and Pilkington's Harmonies may be found a good general history of Harmonizers." Ibid. p. 184. "The sober and learned critic," adds the Bishop, "to whom we are both so much indebted in this debate." Ibid. p. 139. § Ibid. pp. 139, 140. (P.) See Lardner's Works, II. p. 424. nius's notion of our Lord's preaching one year without opposition, and another in which he suffered much from their vexation and envy, you say, "Hence we learn-how uncertain tradition is in these matters, and how little attention is due to the sentiments of the early Christian writers on this subject.' But Epiphanius, who lived in the year 400, was far from being an early writer. In his time, tradition was altogether silent, and fanciful speculation had taken place of it. This is now to be corrected by sober criticism. SECTION XV. MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS.† I. Of the first Excursion from Capernaum. ‡ I STILL think a week sufficient for every thing that is recorded of our Lord's first excursion from Capernaum; and all that your Lordship now urges against it are such general expressions as I had considered before. I own, however, that, were there not other substantial reasons which make me conclude that this excursion was a short one, the general expressions would have led me to imagine that it had been longer. But the argument from these expressions, though certainly in favour of your Lordship's hypothesis, is, I think, abundantly overbalanced by others which I have repeatedly urged. II. Of the second Sabbath after the first. § The reason why I took it for granted that Jesus was in Galilee at the time that the disciples plucked the ears of corn, is, that what is related by all the evangelists immediately before and after the transaction certainly passed in Galilee. I, therefore, think that an hypothesis which requires Jesus to have been in Galilee when it was hardly possible for him to have been there, and in general must have been absolutely impossible, on account of its nearness to the passover, cannot be the true one. This, therefore, I think an insurmountable difficulty with respect to your Lordship's interpretation of the word deurEgongwr. For my own part, I see so little reason for any of the interpreta * Reply, pp. 136, 137. Ibid. pp. 140-143. ↑ Ibid. pp. 140-158. tions that I have yet met with of that word, that I think other harmonizers would have done better if they had paid no attention at all to any supposed derivation of it. THE CONCLUSION.* IT is with the most amiable candour and frankness that your Lordship concludes with a sketch of the hypothesis of two years and a half for the duration of our Lord's ministry, and that you even mention some advantages of that scheme over your own. On this I would observe, that your distribution of our Lord's time, for the fifty days, between the first passover and the following pentecost, comprises all that is most difficult in my hypothesis; but that I think Herod's ignorance of Jesus is too long even upon this scheme. "Thus too," as you say, " Herod heard of Jesus's fame a year sooner than I have supposed, yet not till Jesus had preached and wrought miracles in Galilee for near twelve months." This certainly makes the difficulty less than upon your Lordship's hypothesis, but still it is not, in my opinion, sufficiently within the bounds of probability. I am happy that, in this letter, I have had no occasion to make use of any general principles, besides those in which we are both agreed. Speaking of the greenness of the grass mentioned by Mark, at the time that our Lord fed the five thousand, you say, "If you recur to the supposition that St. Mark was mistaken, you deny one of my first principles, and I cannot reason with you." But I see no great diffi culty in supposing there might be green grass in the neighbourhood of a fresh-water lake on the 13th of May, where I have placed this transaction, even in Judea. I am sorry, however, that the admission of so trifling a mistake as this in an evangelical historian, who was no apostle, who says nothing about his inspiration, and whom we do not know to have been present, should affect any first principle with your Lordship; when I cannot help thinking that the supposition of so high a degree of inspiration, even with respect to the writings of the apostles themselves, is unfavourable to the proper evidence of Christianity, as I think I have shewn in the Preface to my ‡ Ibid. p. 52. (P.) Reply, pp. 147-153. † Ibid. p. 150. (P.) Harmony in Greek, and also in my "Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion."† But though we see this subject, and many others, in very different lights, I hope we shall always cultivate what is of more value than the possession of any truth, viz. a spirit of Christian candour; and that while we maintain what appears to us to be what Christianity really is, and with the earnestness that we conceive its importance authorizes, it will be with that respect for the prejudices of others which Christianity requires, and in such a manner, as that we shall not be ashamed if hereafter we should be found to have been in an error. ‡ Upon the whole, I almost flatter myself, from your Lordship's most ingenuous disposition, which is apparent through the whole of this discussion, that when you consider the early prevalence of the opinion that our Lord's ministry did not much exceed one year; that this opinion was not that of the learned only, who might be misled by their speculations, but also of the unlearned, who had their information from uniform tradition; and the improbability of the interpretation of "the acceptable year" having been received so generally as it was, by many others besides the Valentinians, unless it had been countenanced by the received opinion on the subject, and indeed the impossibility of any interpretation of any text bearing down the general belief of an historical fact; when your Lordship shall consider how often it is asserted by the early Christian writers, that Christ was crucified when the Gemini were consuls, and that this was the very year after that in which he was baptized, viz. the fifteenth of Tiberius, reckoning, as all historians and chronologers, without the least exception, compute them, viz. from the death of Augustus; when you consider the improbability of three evangelists leaving no trace whatever of our Lord's ministry having extended beyond one year, and especially the conduct of Luke, in dating with so much exactness, the beginning of his history, Supra, pp. 8-15. + Vol. II. pp. 208-211. The following concluding sentence of the Bishop's second Reply, dated Waterford, March 20, 1781, is in the same spirit, and may serve to illustrate, by contrast, the controversial style of Horsley, to whom were once ironically attributed "Sermons on Toleration, Humility, Charity, and Brotherly Love." See "Politics for the People," 1794, I. p. 128. "Thus have I freely given you my sentiments on the subject of our amicable debate: I have endeavoured to deliver them with the respect due to your eminence as a scholar, and with the good manners and good-will which we owe to each other as gentlemen, and as Christians." Reply, p. 158. |